Adaptive rating system and method

ABSTRACT

The present invention is embodied in adaptive rating methods and systems. The adaptive rating method includes receiving a first rating for a first product from a user, receiving a second rating for a second product from the user, identifying a conflict with a processor by comparing the first rating and the second rating, soliciting feedback from the user to remedy the conflict, and adjusting at least one of the first or second ratings with the processor responsive to feedback from the user. The steps of the method may be embodied in computer executable instructions stored on a non-transient machine readable medium that cause a processor to perform the method when executed by the processor. The system includes a processor configured to perform the steps of the method.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.13/686,757, filed Nov. 27, 2012, which is a continuation of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 13/023,884 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,321,355) filed Feb.9, 2011, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser.No. 61/423,309, filed Dec. 15, 2010, entitled Expert Rating System forSocial Network Method and System, the entireties of which are expresslyincorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entireties.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Social networking websites such as those hosted on Facebook™ and Yahoo!™provide network services to facilitate interaction between users.Typically, users who sign up for these services are able to establishconnections with other users. As the popularity of such network serviceshas increased many social networking websites service millions of userswith many individual users having large networks including hundreds oreven thousands of connections to other users.

Users of such network services may be interested in requestinginformation or assistance from other users with whom they haveestablished a connection or other members in the network to whom theydon't have an established connection. The development of systems andmethods for users of such network services to request and retrieverelevant information from other users within a social network would beuseful to users.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is embodied in adaptive rating methods andsystems. The adaptive rating method includes receiving a first ratingfor a first product from a user, receiving a second rating for a secondproduct from the user, identifying a conflict with a processor bycomparing the first rating and the second rating, soliciting feedbackfrom the user to remedy the conflict, and adjusting at least one of thefirst or second ratings with the processor responsive to feedback fromthe user. The steps of the method may be embodied in computer executableinstructions stored on a non-transient machine readable medium thatcause a processor to perform the method when executed by the processor.

The system includes a processor configured to receive a first rating fora first product from a user, receive a second rating for a secondproduct from the user, identify a conflict with a processor by comparingthe first rating and the second rating, solicit feedback from the userto remedy the conflict, and adjust at least one of the first or secondratings with the processor responsive to feedback from the user.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The invention is best understood from the following detailed descriptionwhen read in connection with the accompanying drawings, with likeelements having the same reference numerals. When a plurality of similarelements are present, a single reference numeral may be assigned to theplurality of similar elements with a small letter designation referringto specific elements. When referring to the elements collectively or toa non-specific one or more of the elements, the small letter designationmay be dropped. The letter “n” may represent a non-specific number ofelements. Also, lines without arrows connecting components may representa bi-directional exchange between these components. Included in thedrawings are the following figures:

FIG. 1 is a system diagram depicting an exemplary system in accordancewith aspects of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a flow chart depicting exemplary steps for requesting andretrieving information in accordance with aspects of the presentinvention;

FIG. 2A is a block diagram illustrating the establishment of acategory-based network and the establishment of trusted informationresource contacts within the category-based network in accordance withan aspect of the present invention;

FIG. 2B is a table depicting exemplary categories and sub-categories foruse with the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a pending category trust requestin accordance with aspects of the present invention;

FIG. 3A is a block diagram illustrating established trusted informationresource contacts of a user for a category in accordance with aspects ofthe present invention;

FIGS. 3B and 3C are block diagrams illustrating established trustedinformation resource contacts of established trusted informationresource contacts in accordance with aspects of the present invention;

FIG. 3D is a flow chart of exemplary steps for requesting information onother products related to a product of interest to the user inaccordance with an aspect of the present invention;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart of exemplary steps for adapting a rating scale inaccordance with aspects of the present invention;

FIG. 4A is a flow chart of exemplary sub-steps for performing steps ofthe flow chart of FIG. 4;

FIGS. 5A, 5B, and 5C are illustrations of a rating scale in accordancewith aspects of the present invention; and

FIGS. 6A and 6B are illustrative representations of an exemplarycomparative rating scale in accordance with an aspect of the presentinvention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The inventors have recognized that the growing adoption within socialmedia is creating a growing state of diminished utility for users. Asthe current social media products are establishing an increasing numberof relationships, a state of information overload is beginning to occur.The reason is that the current social media models fail to address eachuser's true passions, how they learn, and why they try or buy. Theinventors have further recognized that users are most stronglyinfluenced by small numbers of individuals with whom they have trustinginterpersonal relationships. Thus, larger social circles or socialnetworks do not translate into improved social utility. An aspect of thepresent invention provides a system that supports the natural humantendency for learning and changing behavior; a system that is rooted inhow individual users naturally seek out trusted information resources toprovide them with what they deem as valuable information. The systemextends the existence of an individual user's relationship beyond theirimmediate circle of contacts by perpetuating “trusted” knowledge sharingcategory-based networks extending from their existing social networks.Thus, the value of indirect relationships beyond the first degree of anindividual user's social graph is extended so that individual user canreceive a greater number of useful: (1) trusted recommendations; (2)trusted search results; and/or (3) trusted answers to questions.

Embodiments of the present invention allow a user of a social network torequest information from other users. The information request caninclude, for example, a question for dissemination to other users, asearch request for information maintained in a electronic database,and/or an alert request for information once it is added to thedatabase. In an exemplary embodiment, a user builds one or morecategory-based networks based on categories they have in common withother network users (e.g., investing, wine, fitness regiments,book-types, movie-types, restaurants, music-types, etc). Users are ableto establish a select number of users within each category-based networkas trusted information resource contacts (TIRCs; e.g., users they trustmost within a specific category and/or from which they desire to receiverating information from). In doing so, users are able to filter valuableuser-generated content (UGC; such as questions and answers, reviews,ratings) from a network of trusted resources (e.g., other users they mayview as experts) including the user's established TIRCs, the user'sestablished TIRCs' TIRCs, etc.

FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an exemplary system 100 in whichexemplary embodiments of the present invention may operate. The system100 includes multiple user devices 102 a-n in communication with a hostserver 104 over a network 106 such as the Internet, an intranet, a widearea network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), or other communicationnetwork capable of transporting data. Through user devices 102 a-n,users 103 a-n can communicate over the network 106 with each other andwith other systems and devices coupled to the network 106.

Each of the user devices 102 includes memory 108 and a processor 110such as a microcontroller, microprocessor, an application specificintegrated circuit (ASIC), and/or a state machine coupled to the memory108. Memory 108 may be a conventional computer-readable medium, such asa random access memory (RAM). In an exemplary embodiment, processor 110executes computer-executable program instructions stored in memory 108.Suitable memory 108 and processors 110 will be understood by one ofskill in the art from the description herein. /

User devices 102 a-n may also include a number of input/output (10)devices (not shown) such as a mouse, a CD-ROM, DVD, a keyboard, adisplay, or other input or output devices. Exemplary user devices 102include personal computers, digital assistants, personal digitalassistants, cellular phones, mobile phones, smart phones, pagers,digital tablets, laptop computers, Internet appliances, andprocessor-based devices. In general, a user device 102 a may be any typeof device capable of communication with a network 106 and of interactionwith one or more application programs. In an exemplary embodiment, userdevices 102 a-n may operate on any operating system capable ofsupporting a browser or browser-enabled application, such as Microsoft™Windows™. The user devices 102 a-n shown include, for example, personalcomputers executing a browser application program such as MicrosoftCorporation's Internet Explorer™.

The illustrated host server 104 includes a processor 116 and a memory118. In an exemplary embodiment, processor 116 executes a social networkapplication program (SNAP) 112 stored in memory 118. SNAP 112 allowsusers, such as user 103 a, to interact with and participate in acomputer-based social network (herein “social network”). A socialnetwork can refer to a computer network connecting users, such as peopleor organizations. An example of a social network in which the presentinvention may be implemented is Facebook™.

A social network can comprise user profiles that can be associated withother user profiles. Each user profile may represent a user and a usercan be, for example, a person, an organization, a business, acorporation, a community, a fictitious person, an institution,information source, or other entity. Each profile can contain entries,and each entry can comprise information associated with a profile.Memory 118 may be a conventional computer-readable medium, such as arandom access memory (RAM). In an exemplary embodiment, processor 116executes computer-executable program instructions stored in memory 118.Suitable memory 118 will be understood by one of skill in the art fromthe description herein.

Host server 104, depicted as a single computer system, may beimplemented as a network of computers. Examples of a host server 104 areservers, mainframe computers, networked computers, processor-baseddevices, and similar types of systems and devices. Processor 110 andprocessor 116 can be any of a number of computer processors, such asprocessors from Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, Calif and MotorolaCorporation of Schaumburg, Ill., which will be understood by one ofskill in the art from the description herein.

SNAP 112 can include a category-based information processor 120. In anexemplary embodiment, processor 120 enables a user 103 to establishtrusted information resource contacts/relationships with other usersthat are based on categories and to request information from theseTIRCs. Processor 120 can cause the display of information provided byone or more users 103 of the social network on a user device 102.Processor 120, in some embodiments, can generate, distribute, and/orupdate a search record. Multiple processors and other hardware can beprovided to perform operations associated with embodiments of thepresent invention.

Host server 104 also provides access to electronic data storageelements, such as a social network storage element, in the example shownin FIG. 1, an electronic social network database 122, which may bestored in memory 118 of host server 104 or external to host server 104as illustrated. The social network database 122 may be physicallyattached or otherwise in communication with the social network engine112 by way of a network or other connection. The social network database122 can be used to store users' member profiles including TIRCs of thoseusers. Electronic data storage elements may include any one orcombination of methods for storing data, including without limitation,arrays, hash tables, lists, and pairs. Other similar types of datastorage devices can b e accessed by the host server 104. SNAP 112 canreceive data comprising the user profiles from the social networkdatabase 122 and can also send data comprising user profiles to thesocial network database 122 for storage.

It should be noted that the present invention may comprise systemshaving different architecture than that which is shown in FIG. 1. Forexample, in some systems according to the present invention, host server104 may comprise a single physical or logical server. The system 100shown in FIG. 1 is merely exemplary, and is used to help explain thesocial network and adaptive rating systems and methods illustrated inFIGS. 2-6.

FIG. 2 depicts a flow chart 200 of exemplary steps for retrievinginformation about a category of interest from a social network inaccordance with aspect of the present invention. In an exemplaryembodiment, the social network includes multiple user networks whereeach user network includes multiple users. The steps of flow chart 200will be described with reference to the system 100 depicted in FIG. 1 tofacilitate description. Other systems in which the steps of flow chart200 may be carried out will be understood by one of skill in the artfrom the description herein.

At block 202, information associated with users are stored in adatabase. In an exemplary embodiment, information generated by users 103may be stored in social network database 122. The information mayinclude ratings and reviews of products, answers to questions links, orany other form of user-generated content (UGC). All forms of informationmay be generated and stored by users of the social network prior toreceiving a request for information. Additionally, information generatedand stored after a request for information may be used to satisfy astanding request.

At block 204, user category-based networks associated with categoriesare built. FIG. 2 a depicts an exemplary user network 250 includingmultiple contacts/friends 255 a-x (24 contacts in the illustratedembodiment) within a user's network. Contacts 255 of the user may beassociated with a category such as a category or sub-category (describedbelow) to build a category-based network. In the illustrated embodiment,contacts 255 x, t, p, l, h and d are associated with a category (e.g.,wine) to build category-based network 265. Step 204 may be performed forevery user 103 within social network database 122.

User category-based networks, such as category-based network 265, may bebuilt based on the user associating one or more contacts 255 with aparticular category 260. In an exemplary embodiment, the user mayunilaterally assign contacts 255 to one or more category-based networks.For example, the host server 104 may create a graphical user interface(GUI) for display on a user device 102. The GUI may display each contact250 of the user along with a series of check boxes corresponding tocategories next to each user. The user may then simply select theappropriate check boxes to associate contacts with a category.

In an alternative exemplary embodiment, bilateral agreement may benecessary to establish a category-based network 265. For example, thehost server 104 may create a GUI for display on a user device 102. TheGUI may display each contact 255 of the user along with a series ofcheck boxes corresponding to categories next to each user. Selection ofcategory check boxes associated with a particular contact 255 may resultin an email message to that contact requesting consent. The contact maythen be associated with the category and become a member of thecategory-based network 265 upon a positive response to the consentrequest.

FIG. 2B depicts exemplary categories 275 and sub-categories 276associated with particular categories with which users may beassociated. The sub-categories provide finer granularity forcategorizing. For example, a category may be “wine” and a subcategorymay be “varietal” (Cabernet, Merlot, Zinfandel, etc).

Referring back to FIG. 2, at block 208, contacts are established asTIRCs (e.g., experts) from which the user desires to receiveinformation. The TIRCs form a set 270 of one or more contacts 255 of theuser that are associated with the category and are established as TIRCsof the user for that category. In an exemplary embodiment, the usersends a trusted information resource request to one or more contacts 255for a category/subcategory requesting that those contacts become TIRcsof the user for that category/subcategory. For example, the user maysend trusted information resource requests to three of the contacts 255(e.g., contacts 255 x, p, d) within category-based network 265 to becomeTIRCs of the user for the category/subcategory. The trusted informationresource requests for the category are received by the host server 104,which forwards the trusted information resource requests to the intendedcontacts 255 x, p, d and waits for a response. At this point, thetrusted information resource requests are pending and a trustedinformation resource relationship has not been established, which isillustrated in FIG. 3. The host server 104 then establishes each userfrom which a positive response to the trusted information resourcerequest is received as a TIRC of the user. FIG. 3A depicts theestablishment of a set 270 of trusted information resource relationshipsbetween the user and contacts 255 x, p, d for category-based network265.

In an exemplary embodiment, once TIRCs are established, the user canindividually turn the TIRCs on (active) and off (inactive) as desired.FIG. 3B illustrates /the trusted connections between the user andcontacts 255 x and p turned on, and the trusted connection to expert 255d turned off. In this arrangement, the user is able to retrieveinformation from TIRCs 255 x and 255 p (but not 255 d), and from theTIRCs with which contacts 255 x and 255 p have active trustedconnections (e.g., 255 xa xb, x cand 255 pa, pb, pc); and from theactive TIRCs of contacts 255 xa, xb, xc and 255 pa, pb, pc, etc.

FIG. 3C illustrates the trusted connections between the user andcontacts 255 x and d turned on and the trusted connection to expert 255p turned off. In this arrangement, the user is able to retrieveinformation from TIRCs 255 x and 255 d (but not 255 p), and from theTIRCs with which contacts 255 x and 255 d have active trustedconnections (e.g., 255 xa, xb, da, and db, but not 255 xc); and from theactive TIRCs of contacts 255 xa, xb, da, and db. In an exemplaryembodiment, a contact such as contact 255 xc in FIG. 3C may bedesignated as inactive by the user with which that contact has a trustedinformation resource connection (e.g., by contact 255 x for 255 xc).

In an additional embodiment, to improve search results a user requestingthe search may designate one or more TIRCs of their TIRCs as inactivefor purposes of generating search results for queries by that user. Forexample, a user may designate contact 255 xc as inactive if the userdoes not want results from that contact (e.g., does not trust thatcontact's recommendations based on past experience). In accordance withthis embodiment, designation of a contact as inactive for the user'squeries only renders that contact inactive from the user's viewpoint anddoes not render that contact inactive as a TIRC of other users (e.g.,contact 255 xc may remain an active TIRC of contact 255 x for contact255 x and other users unless contact 255 x designates contact 255 xc asinactive.

The number of active TIRCs per category may be limited. In an exemplaryembodiment, the number of active TIRCs per category is limited to ten orless and, more preferably, to three or less. Step 208 may be performedfor every user 103 within social network database 122.

At block 210, an information request is received that specifies acategory. In an exemplary embodiment, the host server 104 receives aninformation request from a user 103. The information request may includecontent filtering information such as the standard filters 277 a and/oradvanced filters 277 b set forth in FIG. 2B. The host server 104 maygenerate and present a GUI (not shown) to the user 103 for submitting aninformation request. The information request GUI may include a series ofcheck boxes associated with various categories/sub-categories and asubmit button. In an exemplary embodiment, an information request may begenerated by selecting one or more categories/subcategories andselecting the submit button. Additionally, the GUI may include a textbox for entering a question for submission to a user's trustedinformation resources. The GUI may further include check boxes or othermeans for entering filter information for standard filters 277 a and/oradvanced filters 277 b.

At block 212, a first set of users within the user's network areidentified that are associated with the category (i.e., contacts 255 incategory-based network 265) and that are established as TIRCs for thatcategory (i.e., contacts 255 in set 270). In an exemplary embodiment,the host server 104 identifies the first set of users by examining thesocial network database 122 based on the category specified in theinformation request and the user's established TIRCs for that category.The first set of users may be thought of as “experts” from the viewpointof the user.

At block 214, a second set of users within the category-based networksof the first set of users are identified that are associated with thecategory and that are designated as TIRCs for the category by the firstset of users. In an exemplary embodiment, the host server 104 identifiesthe second set of users by examining the social network database 122based on the category specified in the information request and the TIRCsestablished of the first set of users for that category. The second setof users may be thought of as “experts” of the first set of users, e.g.,the expert's experts. The steps of block 214 may be repeated to obtaininformation from TIRCs that are farther removed from the user, e.g., theexpert's expert's expert, the expert's expert's expert's expert, and soon.

At block 216, information is retrieved for identified users. In anexemplary embodiment, the host server 104 retrieves information from thedatabase 122 for identified users (e.g., those identified in steps 212and/or 214) corresponding to the information request. The informationmay be ratings and/or reviews of products within the selected category(step 210), or answers to questions within the selected category. Forexample, assume the category is action films. The host server 104 mayretrieve all ratings and/or reviews of action films by the TIRCsidentified in steps 212 and/or 214. If a user has a question associatedwith a category, the information may be retrieved by disseminating thequestion to the identified users and gathering responses from theidentified users.

At block 218, retrieved information is provided to a user. In anexemplary embodiment, information retrieved by the host server 104 fromthe database 122 at block 216 is transmitted to the client device 102from which the information request was received (step 210) where it maybe viewed by the user 103.

The exemplary steps described above enable a user to monitor newratings, reviews and other UGC of their TIRCs within a desired categoryand the TIRCs of these TIRCs, etc.; search ratings, reviews and otherUGC of TIRCs within a desired category and the TIRCs of these TIRCs,etc.; and send questions to or communicate directly with TIRCs within adesired category and to/with the TIRCs of these TIRCs, etc. Monitoring,searching, and sending functionality is described in further detailbelow:

Monitoring—user 103 can set personal preferences within the socialnetwork to receive information through direct links established throughextended category-based networks of users identified as TIRCs withinthose category-based networks. The information from these TIRCs caninclude ratings, reviews, links, UGC, etc. Within this mode offunctionality the user receives the information automatically, e.g.,periodically or as it is posted by users. The information can befiltered by criteria such as set forth in standard filters 277 a and/oradvance filters 277 b (FIG. 2B) including by way of non-limitingexample, the degrees of separation from the TIRC, the status of activeTIRC designations, the number of UGC posts, ratings or reviews within aspecific topic category by each TIRC, and the social networkcommunities' approval or rating of a TIRC's UGC, ratings, reviews, etc.

As an example, a user may set their “monitor” preferences to notify themof reviews down to the third degree of separation by TIRCs withincategory-based networks for a particular category (e.g., Italianrestaurants) with a particular rating (e.g., above 9.3).

FIG. 3D depicts a flowchart 300 of exemplary steps for monitoringreviews in accordance with one aspect of the present invention. At block302, a information request is received (e.g., at host server 104) from auser identifying a particular product (e.g., product T5 from a group ofproducts including products T1-T6). At block 304, a category/subcategoryassociated with the identified product is identified. For example, thehost server 104 may identify the category/subcategory (e.g., NapaCabernets) associated with product T5 by comparing a product identifier(e.g., UPC code) for product T5 with entries in a database.

At block 306, TIRCs of the user for the identified category areidentified. In an exemplary embodiment, host server 104 identifies TIRCsfor the identified category as described above for blocks 212 and 214 offlow chart 200.

At block 308, host server 304 determines if the TIRCs have reviewed theproduct identified by the user. In an exemplary embodiment, host server104 compares a product identifier of the identified product to productidentifiers of all products reviewed by the TIRCs. If there is not amatch, processing ends at block 310. If there is a match, indicatingthat one or more of the TIRCs have reviewed the identified product,processing proceeds at block 312.

At block 312, host server 304 determines for each TIRC that has reviewedthe identified product whether they rated another product the same orhigher than the identified product. If no TIRC has rated any otherproducts within the category equal to or greater than they rated theidentified product, processing ends at block 314. If one or more TIRCsrated one or more other products equal to or greater than the identifiedproduct, processing ends at block 316 with information for thoseproducts being transmitted to the user device 102 of the user 103requesting the information. This process allows a user to quickly andeasily identify other products that the user may wish to try becausethey were rated by the user's expert, expert's expert, and/or expert'sexpert's expert, as equal to or better than the identified product.

Searching—user 103 can search for ratings, reviews, user generatedcontent, and published content by keywords, pictures, dimensionalbarcodes, non-dimensional barcodes, UPC codes, geocode, GPS coordinates,and more, through direct links established through extendedcategory-based networks of users identified as TIRCs within a category.Within this mode of functionality the user actively requests theinformation. The information can be filtered by criteria such as setforth in standard filters 277 a and/or advanced filters 277 b (FIG. 2B),including by way of non-limiting example, the degrees of separation fromthe TIRC, the status of active TIRC designations, the number of UGCposts, ratings or reviews within a specific topic category by each TIRC,and the social network communities' approval or rating of a TIRC's UGC,ratings, reviews, etc.

As an example, a user may search for ratings, reviews, or other valuableUGC by scanning the barcode on Malcom Gladwell's book “Outliers” inorder to receive relevant information from up to the fifth degree ofseparation within his trusted resource or expert category-based networkfor books.

Q&A′ing—user 103 can send questions to be answered through direct linksestablished through extended category-based networks of users identifiedas TIRCs within a category. Within this mode of functionality the useractively requests answers to questions. The TIRC can filter questions toanswer based on, for example, the degrees of separation from thequestioning user. The answers can be filtered by criteria such as setforth in standard filters 277 a and advance filters 277 b (FIG. 2B),including by way of non-limiting example, the degrees of separation fromthe TIRC, the status of active TIRC designations, the social networkcommunities' approval or rating of a TIRC's answers, and otherindications of credibility or status.

As an example, a user may send a question out to his trusted resourcenetwork for wine, “I am going to San Francisco next month. If I have twodays in Napa, what wineries should I try to schedule a tasting?”

Another aspect of the present invention relates to an adaptive ratingsystem and method that ensures that ratings of entities (e.g., (product,person, service, experience, etc.) remain relevant for a user as thatuser's level of experience matures. For example, a user rating a bottleof wine may have a different rating opinion after having rated 50bottles of wine than after rating three bottles of wine. The presentinvention enables past and/or new ratings to be automatically adjustedin order to make them more relevant.

FIG. 4 depicts a flow chart 400 of exemplary steps for adapting ratingsand FIG. 4A depicts a flow chart 452 of exemplary sub-steps within thesteps of flow chart 400. The steps of flow charts 400 and 450 will bedescribed with reference to the system 100 depicted in FIG. 1 tofacilitate description. Other suitable systems will be understood by oneof ordinary skill in the art from the description herein.

At block 402, a first rating for a first product is received from auser. The rating may be a rating on a scale of 1 to 10 (e.g., a nine)for a product within a category or within a subcategory (e.g., a wine ora California Pinot Noir). In an exemplary embodiment, processor 116 maybe coupled to a receiver (not shown) that receives the rating from auser 103 via user device 102 over network 106.

At block 404, a second rating for a second product is received from theuser. The rating may be a rating on a scale of 1 to 10 (e.g., a nine)for another product within the category or subcategory (e.g., a wine ora California Pinot Noir). In an exemplary embodiment, processor 116 maybe coupled to a receiver (not shown) that receives the rating from theuser 103 via user device 102 over network 106. FIG. 5A depicts a userattempting to rate a second/new product that same as a first/benchmarkproduct (e.g., as a “9”).

Referring back to FIG. 4, at block 406, a potential conflict isidentified between the first rating and the second rating. In anexemplary embodiment, processor 116 identifies the potential conflict.FIG. 4A depicts exemplary sub-steps for identifying a potential conflict(step 406). At sub-step 452, processor 116 compares the first rating tothe second rating. At sub-step 454, processor 116 determines if thefirst rating equals the second rating. If the ratings are equal,processor 116 identifies a potential conflict and processing proceeds atblock 408. If the ratings are not equal, processing ends at block 456.

At block 408, feedback is solicited from the user to remedy thepotential conflict. In an exemplary embodiment, processor 116 solicitsfeedback to remedy the potential conflict.

FIG. 4A depicts exemplary sub-steps for soliciting feedback to remedythe potential conflict (step 408). At sub-step 458, processor 116determines if the second rating is accurate based on the current ratingscale for the category. The current rating scale includes at least onerating of a product (e.g., the first rating for the first product). Inan exemplary embodiment, processor 116 sends a first inquiry to the userasking if the second rating is accurate based on the current ratingscale (e.g., should the second product have the same rating as the firstproduct). If the second rating is inaccurate (e.g., no, the first andsecond products are not equivalent to the user rating the products,processing proceeds at block 462. If the second rating is accurate(e.g., yes, the first and second products are essentially equivalent tothe user rating the products), processing ends at block 460.

At sub-step 462, processor 116 receives a comparative rating between thefirst product and the second product. In an exemplary embodiment,processor 116 sends a rating scale such as depicted in FIG. 5B fordisplay by user device 102 to solicit feedback from user 103. Thedepicted rating scale provides a number of sub-intervals in the vicinityof the first product rating for selection by user 103. For example, ifthe second product is a little better than the first product and thefirst product has a rating by user 103 of “9”, the user may select aslightly higher rating, e.g., “9.5” on the rating scale. In this case,the comparative rating would be “0.5” better. Similarly, if the secondproduct is a little worse than the first product, the user may select aslightly lower rating, e.g., “8.5” on the rating scale. In this case,the comparative rating would be “0.5” worse. The user may enter thecomparative rating in other well known manners, e.g., by typing in acomparative value or other value from which a comparative value may beobtained.

At block 410, the first or second rating is adapted responsive to thefeedback solicited from the user. In an exemplary embodiment, processor116 adapts the first or second rating. FIG. 4A depicts an exemplarysub-step for adapting that rating of the first or second rating (step410). At step 464, processor 116 proportionally adjusts the first ratingbased on the comparative rating. In an exemplary embodiment, the ratingof a first product is only adjusted when the first product has themaximum value rating on the rating scale (e.g., a value of “10” on aten-point scale) and a maximum value rating is received for a secondproduct that they user believes should have a higher rating than thefirst rating.

As an illustrative example, consider a first product having a rating of10 as previously rated by the user. If the user attempts to rate asecond product as a 10, similar to as illustrated in FIG. 5A, the system(e.g., processor 116) will identify a conflict. Feedback will then besolicited from the user to determine if the second product should havethe same rating as the first product. If the user indicates that itshould not have the same value, the user submits a comparative rating ofthe second product to the first product, e.g., a rating of 9.1-9.9 or10.1-10.9. In an exemplary embodiment, if a rating of 10.1 to 10.9 werereceived from the user (e.g., 10.6 as illustrated in FIG. 5C), thesecond product would then be established as a benchmark for a rating of10 and the first product (and any other previously rated products forthe category) would be proportionally re-rated, e.g., by processor 116.For example, if the first product had a rating of 10 and the secondproduct was given a comparative rating of 10.6, the first product wouldbe given a rating of 9.4 (10.0-0.6=9.4) and the second product would beestablished as a 10. It will be understood that the system could beapplied to many ratings for many products, in which case all thepreviously rated products may be automatically adjusted in a mannersimilar to the first product.

For example, as a first step (STEP ONE) ratings may be received by thehost server 104 from a user 103 rating multiple products within acategory, e.g., product 1=3, product 2=5, and product 3=8. The hostserver 104 may then proportionally adjust the ratings of the products toa standardized scale in which the rating of the highest rated product isset to the top value of the standardized scale and the ratings of theother products are proportionally adjusted. For example, if thestandardized scale is a ten-point scale, product 3 may be set to 10 andproducts 1 and 2 may be proportionally adjusted, e.g., product 1 equals4(⅜*10=3.75) and product 2 equals 6(⅝*10=6.25). Next (STEP THREE), thehost server 104 receives a rating for a product within the category fromthe user 103 that has a rating higher than the highest rated productwithin that category, e.g., product 4 equals 10.9. Finally (STEP FOUR),the host server 104 adjusts the new rating to the highest rating andproportionally adjusts the other ratings. For example, product 4 is setequal to 10; product 1 is set equal to 4 (Old Score-Old Score*AdjustmentFactor=Old Score-Old Score*(Max benchmark for 10-10)/10=01d Score-OldScore*(10.9-10)/10=4-4*0.09=3.64); products 2 is set equal to 5 (OldScore-Old Score*Adjustment Factor=Old Score-Old Score*(Max benchmark for10-10)/10=01d Score-Old Score*(10.9-10)/10=6-6*0.09=5.46); and product 3is set equal to 9(Old Score-Old Score*Adjustment Factor=Old Score-OldScore*(Max benchmark for 10-10)/10=Old Score-OldScore*(10.9-10)/10=10-10*0.09=9.1). In another embodiment, ratings areproportionally adjusted whenever a potential conflict is identified anda comparative rating (e.g., higher and/or lower) is received from auser.

Aspects of the adaptive rating system may include by way of non-limitingexample:

a) A rating system where the entity (product, person, service,experience, etc) with the highest rating serves as the benchmark forwhich all lower rated products or experiences are ranked against withina specific category.

b) A process that requires the user to rate any new entities in relationto the value of current benchmarks within a specific category.

c) A rating system where a process requires the user, when attempting torate an entity that has an equal rating to an existing entity, toconfirm that the rating of the entity is truly equal, where if therating of the new entity is not equal, the rating of the new entity hasto be set either greater than or less than the previous benchmark forthat entity.

d) A process that when the user indicates that the rating of a new (orre-rated) entity is greater than the current highest benchmark, all therating of entities weighted in relation to the former benchmark areadjusted proportionally.

The present invention is capable of adjusting ratings as a user's tastesmature and experience within a category/subcategory evolves, whilekeeping scores based on a relative scale. For example, a user tries amid-tier Bordeaux as one of their first wine experiences and give it a10. As the user tries other wines they do not enjoy as much they willrate them less than 10 (using the mid-tier Bordeaux as the top of thescale). The user may eventually try a Bordeaux they enjoy more than anyother he has previously experienced. When he tries to give it a score of10, the adaptive rating system/method requires him to rate this Bordeauxin comparison to the mid-tier Bordeaux that is currently serving as hisbenchmark for “10”. If the user feels they are equal, both remain a 10.If the user rates the new Bordeaux greater than the current standingmid-tier Bordeaux (e.g. 10.5), the 10.5 Bordeaux becomes the newbenchmark for “10”. The previous mid-tier Bordeaux that represented 10,along with all the wines that were rated in comparison to the mid-tierBordeaux are automatically adjusted in relation to the new 10 pointscale now established by the 10.5 Bordeaux. By adapting the rating scale(maintaining a True10™ rating system), the value of an individual ratingbecomes significantly more valuable and relevant to users within anetwork—making one's own ratings more accurate to themselves, and moremeaningful and relevant to others.

The adapted score makes an expert's ratings or recommendations morerelevant, which can be further enhanced by considering additionalfeatures, including, but not limited to:

a trust index: how many people directly trust a person as a TIRC (e.g.,expert) for a specific category.

a like index: the degree to which other users “like” the answers,recommendations, and/or ratings of an expert.

an experience index: how many products the expert has rated, questionsthey have answered, etc.

For example, a reviewer/expert may be evaluated on a scale of 0 to 10based on the following four characteristics: (1) number of reviewswritten (“WRITTEN”), (2) number of reviews read by other users (“READ”),(3) number of times identified as a TIRC by other users (“EXPERT”), and(4) number of times reviewed were identified by other users as helpful(“HELP”). For each characteristic, a maximum point level (e.g., 10) maybe given to a reviewer/expert with the largest number ofreviews/customer indications. Each evaluation characteristic may beassigned a weight coefficient correlated with its contribution to anoverall evaluation to obtain a final evaluation score, e.g., rangingfrom 0 to 10. Maximum values for one or more characteristics may bedesignated. In one example, WRITTEN has a weight of 0.2(K_(W)=0.2), READhas a weight of 0.5(K_(R)=0.2), EXPERT has a weight of 0.5(K_(E)=0.5),and HELP has a weight of 0.5(K_(H)=0.1). Input variables may include:(1) i, reviewer's index (i=0 . . . N where N is the total number ofreviewers); (2) W_(i), number of reviews written by the ith reviewer;(3) W_(max), maximum number of reviews written by a reviewer/expert; (4)R_(i), number of reviews by ith reviewer/expert that were read by otherusers; (5) R_(max), maximum number of ith reviewer/expert read reviews;(6) E_(max) number of times ith reviewer/expert identified as a TIRC byother users; (7) E. maximum number of TIRC identifications; (8) H_(i),number of reviews by ith reviewer/expert identified as helpful; (9)H_(max), maximum number of reviews by ith reviewer/expert identified ashelpful. An exemplary algorithm for determining a weight of eachreviewers/experts, i, may be as set forth in equation (1).

$\begin{matrix}{{EV} = {{K_{W}\frac{W_{i}}{W_{\max}}10} + {K_{R}\frac{R_{i}}{R_{\max}}10} + {K_{E}\frac{E_{i}}{E_{\max}}10} + {K_{H}\frac{H_{i}}{H_{\max}}10}}} & (1)\end{matrix}$

FIGS. 6A and 6B depict an exemplary user interfaces for rating products.In FIG. 6A, a user is presented with a portion of a rating scale 600,e.g., integers 8, 9, and 10 of a ten-point scale. The host server 104may present the rating scale horizontally on a user device 102. A user103 may select a rating by moving an indicator along the rating scale600 and selecting a particular point on the rating scale when theposition of the indicator corresponds to the desired rating. Forexample, the user may utilize a user input device such as a mouse (notshown) to move the indicator and may depress a key on the mouse to makea rating selection. If a rating conflict is identified, e.g., by hostserver 104 as described above with reference to block 458 (e.g., theuser tries to rate a new product as a “9” and there is an existingproducts rated as a “9”), the user is presented with a comparativerating scale such as depicted in FIG. 6B for use in making a comparativerating. The host server 104 may present the comparative rating scale 602in an orientation other than the orientation of the rating scale 600,e.g., vertically, on a user device 102. In the illustrated embodiment,comparative rating scale 602 has finer granularity than rating scale600. The user may then be required to select a comparative rating on thecomparative rating scale 602 between the next value greater “10” and thenext value lower “8,” e.g., between 8.1 and 9.9, using an input devicesuch as a mouse moving vertically along the comparative rating scale602.

It is contemplated that one or more of the various components and stepsdescribed above may be implemented through software that configures aserver to perform the function of these components and/or steps. Thissoftware may be embodied in a non-transient machine readable storagemedium, e.g., a magnetic disc, an optical disk, a memory-card, or othertangible medium capable of storing instructions. The instructions, whenexecuted by computer, such as a server, cause the computer to execute amethod for performing the function of one or more components and/orsteps described above.

Although the invention is illustrated and described herein withreference to specific embodiments, the invention is not intended to belimited to the details shown. Rather, various modifications may be madein the details within the scope and range of equivalents of the claimsand without departing from the invention.

What is claimed:
 1. An adaptive rating method comprising: receiving afirst rating for a first product from a user; receiving a second ratingfor a second product from the user; identifying a conflict with aprocessor by comparing the first rating and the second rating;soliciting feedback from the user to remedy the conflict; and adjustingat least one of the first or second ratings with the processorresponsive to feedback from the user; wherein the first product andsecond product are similar.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein theidentifying step comprises: comparing the first and second ratings; andidentifying a conflict if the first and second ratings are equal.
 3. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the soliciting step comprises: sending afirst inquiry to the user asking if the first rating is incorrect;receiving a response from the user that the first rating is incorrect;sending a second inquiry to the user soliciting a comparative ratingbetween the first product and the second product; and receiving thecomparative rating from the user.
 4. The method of claim 3, wherein thestep of sending the second inquiry includes: sending a rating scaledepicting the first rating for the first product; and requesting thatthe user identify the comparative rating for the second product to thefirst product.
 5. The method of claim 3, wherein the adapting stepcomprises: proportionally adjusting the first rating based on thecomparative rating.
 6. An adaptive rating system comprising: a receiverthat receives a first rating for a first product from a user and asecond rating for a second product from the user; a processor coupled tothe receiver, the processor configured to identify a conflict bycomparing the first rating and the second rating, solicit feedback fromthe user to remedy the conflict, and adjust at least one of the first orsecond ratings responsive to feedback from the user; wherein the firstand second product are obtained from the same vendor.
 7. The system ofclaim 6, wherein the processor identifies the conflict by comparing thefirst and second ratings and identifying a conflict if the first andsecond ratings are equal.
 8. The system of claim 6, wherein theprocessor solicits feedback by sending a first inquiry to the userasking if the first rating is incorrect, receiving a response from theuser that the first rating is incorrect, sending a second inquiry to theuser soliciting a comparative rating between the first product and thesecond product, and receiving the comparative rating from the user. 9.The system of claim 8, wherein the processor sends the second inquiry bysending a rating scale depicting the first rating for the first productand requesting that the user identify the comparative rating for thesecond product to the first product.
 10. The system of claim 8, whereinthe processor adapts the rating scale by proportionally adjusting thefirst rating based on the comparative rating.